Is Atheism a chiefly liberal or conservative philosophy?

I know this may seem like a bit of an odd question but I’ve been wondering about it for the past few days and for some reason I can’t escape the feeling that it (atheism) would be a rather ‘conservative’ point of view (that is, at least in title), and yet I’m constantly being called a liberal because of my social and political leanings. I'm just wondering what your views are on this.

 

PS: I’ll be gone for a few days but I will catch up with this thread when I return.

Views: 2307

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I've looked it up. Corruption with government subsidies is responsible, not free trade. Free trade has not existed anytime near any bubble. Throughout history it is governmental intervention that has caused the financial crises.

Well, since everyone is out for themselves, then I am entitled to do whatever needs to be done to secure myself and my family? That is the moral law, right? And that leads us back to might makes right again, and another tight little circle with you that you won't comprehend.

 

And the markets crashed precisely because of the deregulation of the markets, but I'm sure you will revise history to tailor-make it to suit your own beliefs.

 

And one can be cocooned in a system. Park's point is a good one. You are woking within the most prosperous nation ever.

Might does not make right. You guys are repeatedly ignoring my central point and that is no one has the moral right to take from another by force.
I just remembered that virtually every so-called "right" we have has been fought for by the left and opposed by the right. Racial equality, gender equality, sexual-orientation equality, religious freedoms, etc. have all come from left-wingers fighting against those in power and wresting self-determination from the hands of those who would withhold it from them in the name of moral superiority. What has the right ever given us but racial discord, misogyny, bigotry, antagonism, class warfare, homophobia, and religious intolerance?
It's the natural state of man, everyone out for themselves, and man's life will be "nasty, brutish, and short". When we live in the anarchy MT espouses, he'll be one of the first to find out the hard way.
Oh thank you Park, this speaks right to my point. Exactly where I was going with this. How is a philosophy which abdicates all responsibility to others when you have power but refuses to empower you when you don't work? It means that when you have power, you are further empowered by the protections it offers you against those without from having any claim on anything you may have, justly or ill-gotten. But if you have nothing, and you are down on your luck and desperate, you are SOL. But I would argue instead, Park, that the philosophy MT is espousing specifically says it is immoral to use any force whatsoever, apparently evenb legal force, to take that which belongs to another. I.e., you can't even resort to violence, you must simply lay down and take it up the ass. This goes against even man's most basic nature, and a philosophy which does that asks the impossible. Of course, if you are rich, this philosophy works out great - noone can touch your shit, even in the most desparate situations, and you are free to become as fabulously wealthy as you can with no restrictions or limitations placed upon how rich or powerful you may wish to become, relative to others or in absolute terms.
Retaliatory force is just fine. If you are without something, you are not SOL, necessarily. No one can legally push you down. Nonaggression. But that does not mean we have to help you or that we should force others to help, with the threat of incarceration if they don't. You are the aggressor.
A government that respects only individual rights is not anarchy.
So you really think, Park, that you have a fundamental right to my shit? Ridiculous.
Damn man everybody doesn't have to bash the rich. Jesus Christ Lucifer, the only thing they did was accumulate more wealth than others. All rich people should not be vilified, for the sake of being wealthy. Heck, most wealthy people are self made and deserve every penny they worked hard for, but inherited wealth is a different story. As for the idea that we should allow people with money to rule us because they are wealthy, is a no no even though it seems like that is what's happening already in our society, unfortunately.
Ok MT, quick question. Suppose you had the political power to make this choice - to do something to prevent some segment of the society from starving to death (let's take food stamps as perhaps an appropriate remedy), or to simply let them die. According to your philosophy then, the moral thing to do is to take no action and let them die, correct? And let's also assume that you know nothing about this segment of society, so you have no idea what the reasons are for them starving, so you don't make the judgment call based on whether you think they are justly or unjustly starving. If this makes a difference, explain why.

W,

First of all, I do not believe that a political decision should be allowed to influence anything other than who will and how they will protect our individual rights. To keep every individual free from coercion. Second, no, the moral thing is not to let people starve to death. Nor is it to force other people to help. As I have said before, philanthropy and charity, imo, would flourish even more than they do now. I can imagine an organization designed to help people like this, soliciting voluntary contributions perhaps, or starting a business whose profit is dedicated to starving people, with a logo and brand that consumers can be proud they have contributed to what they perceive as a good cause. And, why they are starving has no imapct whatsoever, imo, as to whether or not you force someone to help, as a rule of the land (institutionalized violence), but would certainly matter as to whether I make a decision to help them personally. This is partially why it should be left up to the individual to help or not, as they see fit. And as for mob rule, I think that if we are to elect officials to run the military, national guard, law courts and other valid extensions of retaliatory force, mob rule is the only fair way to go. If it is concerning other non-moral institutionalized violence, the mob should not have a say in where my money goes. The mob is only proper in deciding who and how our individual rights will be protected or what objective laws will be enforced. Park, any reason why you are addresssing me in the third person?

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service